Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I understand this is the theory — from a Buddhist point of view, it is wrong.

Fair enough, but even from a buddhist POV wouldn't a buddhist have to accept that this kind of view can actually make sense, from a logical/mathematical perspective, which I assume is the same kind of logic used by buddhists to accept basic buddhist tenets. The theory might well be wrong, but given that it's based on logic, doesn't it go to show that causation might not be universal after all?

I told you already, space is everywhere. Matter obstructs, space does not.

Oops sorry then I guess I just didn't understand. You're saying you're not talking about physical space, maybe that's the part that threw me. What kind of space then are you talking about?
I know that matter obstructs, space does not. But space can be obstructed by matter. In fact all the space we know about and commonly experience is obstructed by matter.

The earth is actually the characteristic of matter we call solidity, and so on.

The earth is a specific object. Solidity is a concept that can describe many different things. I can touch something solid but i can't touch solidity... I can only ascribe it to other concrete objects such as earth.

Unconditioned space is not a characteristic of matter, but because of space, matter can form and perish.

So do you mean, maybe, space as a conceptual dimension? Just like time basically?

Which logic are you referring to? Certainly not the logic of Aristotelian propositions and so forth.

I'm referring to the logic that leads you to say, for example, that it makes no sense to have a causeless cause, or that you can't be one thing and its opposite at the same time. The basic logic you have probably used to start out in buddhism deciding that it made more sense than other paths.

BTW thanks for taking the time to reply. I realise you have nothing to gain from this and I'm the only one learning new stuff here.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I understand this is the theory — from a Buddhist point of view, it is wrong.

Fair enough, but even from a buddhist POV wouldn't a buddhist have to accept that this kind of view can actually make sense, from a logical/mathematical perspective, which I assume is the same kind of logic used by buddhists to accept basic buddhist tenets. The theory might well be wrong, but given that it's based on logic, doesn't it go to show that causation might not be universal after all?

Logic is very limited. In any case, among the reasons we accept beginningless multiple repeating universes is that this is the experience of many yogis, not just the Buddha, which comes from recalling their past lives.

Oops sorry then I guess I just didn't understand. You're saying you're not talking about physical space, maybe that's the part that threw me. What kind of space then are you talking about?

I know that matter obstructs, space does not. But space can be obstructed by matter. In fact all the space we know about and commonly experience is obstructed by matter.

I clarified for you already, there are two kinds of space discussed in Buddhadharma: unconditioned space and conditioned space. The former is absence of obstruction, the latter is volume.

The earth is actually the characteristic of matter we call solidity, and so on.

The earth is a specific object. Solidity is a concept that can describe many different things. I can touch something solid but i can't touch solidity... I can only ascribe it to other concrete objects such as earth.

As I said, since you do not understand the basic terms of the conversation, it is hard to have this conversation with you. In Buddhadharma in general, but also in Indian cosmology in general, earth = solidity, water = liquidity, fire = heat, air = motility: these are the four basic characteristics of matter, from a Higgs boson up to a super nova and everything in between. Unconditioned space is considered a fifth "element", and consciousness is considered the sixth. The universe is made up, from a Buddhist point of view, only of these six elements. When we say these things are elements, it does not mean they are single substances. When we say consciousness is an element, we mean the aggregates of all consciousness taken together is a component or element of the universe, since the universe contains sentient beings.

Unconditioned space is not a characteristic of matter, but because of space, matter can form and perish.

So do you mean, maybe, space as a conceptual dimension? Just like time basically?

Space is not treated as a conceptual dimension.

Which logic are you referring to? Certainly not the logic of Aristotelian propositions and so forth.

I'm referring to the logic that leads you to say, for example, that it makes no sense to have a causeless cause, or that you can't be one thing and its opposite at the same time. The basic logic you have probably used to start out in buddhism deciding that it made more sense than other paths.

A, so you are referring to propositional logic. Buddhist logic is anti-Aristotelian, which is why, among other things, it categorically rejects first causation, Aristotle's unmoved mover and so forth, upon which Christian, Islamic and Jewish theology is erected.

BTW thanks for taking the time to reply. I realise you have nothing to gain from this and I'm the only one learning new stuff here.

Yes, I understand you are trying to get your intellectual bearings in a new field of study, no problem.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

I'm not sure what term is being translated here, but I found this section from KTGR interesting:

Since the mind’s essence is primordially pure and free of stains that are other than the mind’s essence, mind’s true nature is referred to as “transcendent perfection of authentic purity.” Since the mind’s essence is other than the self that one believes in and clings to and since the mind’s essence is other than non-self or selflessness discovered through inference and deduction, mind’s true nature is referred to as “the genuine self.” But how can stains of erroneous notions about it conceal mind’s true nature? Mind’s true nature is beyond the self one thinks one perceives and then imputes to be real and it is beyond the notion of selflessness one thinks one has discovered through logical reasoning. Mind’s true nature is called “genuine self” since it is beyond any assumptions of both a self as well as non-self or selflessness.

Malcolm wrote:As for tathāgatagarbha always existing in the continuums of sentient beings; if you think somehow tathāgatagarba is something other than or different than a sentient beings mind, there there is a fallacy of the tathāgatagarbha being something like an atman. But there is no atman in the tathāgatagarbha theory, not really. the supreme self, (paramātma) is explained very clearly in the Uttaratantra:

The supreme self is the pacification of the proliferations of self and and nonself.

But what does this mean? Asanga adds:

The perfection of self (ātmapāramitā) is known through two reasons: due to being free from proliferation of a self because of being free from the extreme of the non-buddhists and due to being free from the proliferation of nonself because of giving up the extreme of the śrāvakas.

He explains further:

From cultivating prajñāpāramita in order to turn away from seeing the five addictive aggregates as self, the non-existent self in which the others, the nonbuddhists, delight, one attains the result, the perfection of self. In this way all the others, the nonbuddhists, accept natureless things such as matter and so on as a self due to their being deceived by a characteristic of a self according to how those things are being apprehended, but that self never existed.

The Tathāgata, on the other hand, has attained the supreme perfection of the selflessness of all phenomena through the wisdom that is in accord with just how things truly are, and though there is no self according to how he sees things, he asserts a self all the time because he is never deceived by the characteristic of a self that does not exist. Making the selfless into a self is like saying "abiding through the mode of nonabiding.

There are some people who, ignoring the Nirvana Sutra's admonition to rely on the meaning rather than on the words, fall headlong into eternalism, unable to parse the Buddha's profound meaning through addiction to naive literalism.

Tathagatagarbha is just a potential to become a buddha. When we say it is has infinite qualities, this is nothing more nor less than when the Vajrapañjara praises the so called "jewel-like mind":

The jewel-like mind is tainted with
evil conceptual imputations;
but when the mind is purified it becomes pure.
Just as space cannot be destroyed,
just as is space, so too is the mind.
By activating the jewel-like mind
and meditating on the mind itself, there is the stage of buddhahood,
and in this life there will be sublime buddhahood.
There is no buddha nor a person
outside of the jewel-like mind,
the abode of consciousness is ultimate,
outside of which there isn't the slightest thing.
All buddhahood is through the mind...
Matter, sensation, perception
formations and consciousness
these all arise from the mind,
these [five] munis are not anything else.
Like a great wishfulfilling gem,
granting the results of desires and goals,
the pure original nature of the true state of the mind
bestows the result, Buddha's awakening

There is no other basis apart from this natural purity of the mind that is inseparable clarity and emptiness. We can call it whatever we want, but still this fact remains. The Lankāvatara rightly observes that tathāgatagarbha is just a name for emptiness and the ālayavijñāna for those afraid of emptiness. Jayānanda writes that ālayavijñāna is the mind that comprehends the basis, i.e. emptiness. How else can the mind be purified of evil conceptual imputations other than by realizing emptiness? Emptiness free from all extremes is the pure original nature of the true state of the mind, so why bother confusing oneself with all kinds of rhetoric? The mind itself has two aspects, emptiness and clarity, ka dag and lhun grub, and these are inseparable. This inseparable clarity and emptiness is call the ālaya in gsar ma and the basis in Nyingma. This also known as tathagatagarbha when it encased in afflictions, the dharmadhātu from its ultimate side, the ālayavijñāna from its relative side and so on. It really is not that complicated.

Khenpo Tsultrim and Thrangu Rinpoche explain that, since the fruit is beyond concepts, it must also be beyond concepts of pure and impure, bliss and suffering, and permanence and impermanence. Thus, they are "parameter" qualities in the sense of transcending all conceptual categories [nisprapanca]. This accords with RGV [1.37] which explains that the fruit is the "True Self" because it is beyond the concepts of both self and non-self.

I think asunthatneversets' quotation of Malcolm in the post just above this post says the same thing, but my reading comprehension skills aren't quite good enough to be sure. I just thought that hearing the explanation from Khenpo Tsultrim was relevant since this digression started with a quote from him.

Khenpo Tsultrim and Thrangu Rinpoche explain that, since the fruit is beyond concepts, it must also be beyond concepts of pure and impure, bliss and suffering, and permanence and impermanence. Thus, they are "parameter" qualities in the sense of transcending all conceptual categories [nisprapanca]. This accords with RGV [1.37] which explains that the fruit is the "True Self" because it is beyond the concepts of both self and non-self.

zengen wrote:I think people keep confusing between the "self" that is an illusion of the five skandhas and the "True Self" that is beyond the five skandhas and is taught in Buddhism as the Buddha Nature that is inherent in all living beings. When you argue whether or not the SELF exists, which "self" are you referring to?

The five skandhas are not a self, and there is no self outside them.

People need to stop turning what Buddha said around backwards. He actually said The five skandhas are not the self, and the self is not inside them

zengen wrote:I think people keep confusing between the "self" that is an illusion of the five skandhas and the "True Self" that is beyond the five skandhas and is taught in Buddhism as the Buddha Nature that is inherent in all living beings. When you argue whether or not the SELF exists, which "self" are you referring to?

The five skandhas are not a self, and there is no self outside them.

People need to stop turning what Buddha said around backwards. He actually said The five skandhas are not the self, and the self is not inside them

Totally dishonest reading, he never implied any "self" at all, outside of a few Tathagatagarbha sutras.

"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

Merci pour donner cette version en Français, je suis curieuse sûr ce sujet. The topic has many a Buddhist apparently running for the hills as if their non-soul might permanently stained touching such a subject... but for the sake of historicity... it is interesting to understand.
I'm just passionately curious...in any language.

"To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget." –Arundhati Roy